I do not understand how people can keep trying to make that argument...
Because paper Magic should not be affected by online play. People who play in paper need a base ban list, the RC provides one. The people who program MTGO have CHOSEN to use that as the be-all-end-all. You can choose to play with that list or not, by choosing to use MTGO or not.
You want the banlist changed because you think you know a better online list to use. Convince the MTGO programmers that's the better list to use. You want the majority (paper players) to fold to the minority (online players). That's ludicrous considering you cant even get consensus on what a "better" list would look like.
Define Casual for me please Wildfire. Is Maelstrom Wanderer Casual? Azami (with or without MoM)? How about LD? ABU Dual Lands? Counter Spells? No matter how you answer those I guarantee you someone will disagree.
So forgive me if I don't put much stock in that idea, especially with regards to an official ban list, that many people are forced to use.
Thats the problem you choose not to talk about: This is all opinion. Whats casual and whats not is open to interpretations, so why would your list be better?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Wildfire did a good job defining how the format views casual, but this format is more social than casual. Every deck building and in game consideration should be made with the rest of the players in mind. If your opponents enjoy grinding out against Bitterblossom and Smokestack then you are doing nothing wrong. If that play just made the game miserable for your table them your being antisocial. I would argue that 60 card formats don't care if your individual opponent is having fun, so long as games aren't consistently being drawn to time or warping the format to the point of "play this card or die by it".
I'm not sure why EDH players believe fun is only a consideration for them. It's not that 60-card formats, from all angles, don't care if the opposing player is having fun. If you jam a top deck against an overmatched deck, in any format, the two people playing at the kitchen table will soon adapt so that they're having fun again. If people aren't having fun at a tournament, they'll drop. That's because people participate in that kind of Magic with the main goal of having fun.
And I can assure you that a great portion, if not most, of WOTC creative and design is motivated around the concept of fun. It's pretty clear also that even the DCI is concerned with fun as experienced through tournament attendance. As I remember from the JTMS-Stoneforge ban of Zendikar Standard, one of the principal reasons they gave for the nerf to the Caw Blade deck was that everyone had had their fun with it, and DCI judgment was that more fun was to be had for the remaining season without it than with it.
The thing is that balance, or lack thereof, is a factor that is, almost without dispute, detrimental to fun. And then balance gets discussed in isolation becuase it's objective, so now you don't have to have a pissing match about what is fun. If it's imbalanced, then it's presumptively unfun. If you have to go through leaps and bounds avoiding the imbalance, with the goal of making the game fun again, that only strengthens the case that imbalance is deterimental to fun.
Besides, are you saying that bans ruin your fun? That we need to keep Vintage restricted cards legal in EDH in order to have fun? I don't think anyone will say that. The idea that bans are made in order to make a game worse, rather than better, is one of those things that I have no clue how it got started and was accepted to the degree it has been in EDH apologetics.
Because paper Magic should not be affected by online play. People who play in paper need a base ban list, the RC provides one. The people who program MTGO have CHOSEN to use that as the be-all-end-all. You can choose to play with that list or not, by choosing to use MTGO or not.
You want the banlist changed because you think you know a better online list to use. Convince the MTGO programmers that's the better list to use. You want the majority (paper players) to fold to the minority (online players). That's ludicrous considering you cant even get consensus on what a "better" list would look like.
So basically you are saying, "Tough, deal with it." I guess you've conceded the point then?
Thats the problem you choose not to talk about: This is all opinion. Whats casual and whats not is open to interpretations, so why would your list be better?
Also, you shouldn't have to be better qualified as an authority to issue a ban list before you're qualified to criticize the current one. Where's the burden of proof here? Certain cards are not banned, that decision or non-decision was made according to some justification, and that justification is totally vulnerable to criticism.
There has to be a line somewhere, and it's gotten drawn right about there.
Not having an impact after their removal is definitely a factor (for Iona, too).
As for Protean Hulk, we talked about unbanning it, sent it out to a bunch of playgroups for testing and they all came back with "please don't unban it". Maybe someday.
Iona has the unfortunate side effect of preventing a lot of removal from hitting her if you call the right color, but yeah, this is correct.
How long ago was the Hulk test? Was Primetime still legal at the time? Because that makes a pretty big difference.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think the design philosophy is starting to steer away from "yup, we made this for EDH, did we make it obvious enough?" and heading towards a more subtle approach like the origins walkers. I initially disliked transform, but the way it was implemented in origins was perfect!
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
So basically you are saying, "Tough, deal with it." I guess you've conceded the point then?
The point that some people are "stuck" with the banlist when playing online? Yes, I suppose I am. You know that fact going in, and choose to play. You can attempt to get MTGO to change, but that seems like a pipe dream.
Also, you shouldn't have to be better qualified as an authority to issue a ban list before you're qualified to criticize the current one. Where's the burden of proof here? Certain cards are not banned, that decision or non-decision was made according to some justification, and that justification is totally vulnerable to criticism.
Sure it is, but the burden is on you and yours to show something else would be better. Complain all you like, this is a forum with specifically that task, but you have to show how it would be better if you want others to agree with you. These forums matter, the RC looks at them and uses the information here. But if you cant convince anyone here, why would the RC listen?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I'm not sure why EDH players believe fun is only a consideration for them. It's not that 60-card formats, from all angles, don't care if the opposing player is having fun. If you jam a top deck against an overmatched deck, in any format, the two people playing at the kitchen table will soon adapt so that they're having fun again. If people aren't having fun at a tournament, they'll drop. That's because people participate in that kind of Magic with the main goal of having fun.
Bolded for emphasis. If a person is not having fun doing something, they don't (usually) grit their teeth and get better just to see if they might actually like it, they quit doing it altogether. If I try a new food and it tastes awful, I don't eat it more, I stop eating it and find something else to eat.
And I can assure you that a great portion, if not most, of WOTC creative and design is motivated around the concept of fun. It's pretty clear also that even the DCI is concerned with fun as experienced through tournament attendance. As I remember from the JTMS-Stoneforge ban of Zendikar Standard, one of the principal reasons they gave for the nerf to the Caw Blade deck was that everyone had had their fun with it, and DCI judgment was that more fun was to be had for the remaining season without it than with it.
Yeah I already said as much. People having fun at a tournament = higher attendance = more sales. People not having fun = not attending tournaments = less money. Caw-Blade wasn't nerfed because it wasn't fun. It was arguably one of the most fun decks to pilot because it was so skill intensive and rewarding of perfect play. It was banned because it made up over half of the entire tournament metagame. You had the choice of not playing Caw-Blade and probably losing or playing Caw-Blade and having a coin flip if you were lucky and skilled. There was also proof with hard numbers that tournament attendance was dropping. So they nerfed it with bans to keep the crux of the deck from further warping the format.
The thing is that balance, or lack thereof, is a factor that is, almost without dispute, detrimental to fun. And then balance gets discussed in isolation becuase it's objective, so now you don't have to have a pissing match about what is fun. If it's imbalanced, then it's presumptively unfun. If you have to go through leaps and bounds avoiding the imbalance, with the goal of making the game fun again, that only strengthens the case that imbalance is deterimental to fun.
Imbalance is only detrimental to fun when players choose to ignore it. Let's imagine that the three of us decided to play HORSE with Michael Jordan. Seems like an awfully imbalanced game, how could either of us expect to have any fun? But Michael, being the cool guy that he is and knowing that HORSE isn't about winning as quickly as possible and more about having fun making goofy trick shots, decides that he's only going to make shots which would put the Harlem Globetrotters to shame. We all have a fun game in which we get to participate, and we probably still get beaten by him, but it doesn't matter because the game wasn't a lopsided suckfest of him making perfect three-pointers and us not because we aren't former NBA players.
Besides, are you saying that bans ruin your fun? That we need to keep Vintage restricted cards legal in EDH in order to have fun? I don't think anyone will say that. The idea that bans are made in order to make a game worse, rather than better, is one of those things that I have no clue how it got started and was accepted to the degree it has been in EDH apologetics.
I don't even know how to respond to this. I cannot fathom how you arrived at this conclusion.
I'm not sure why EDH players believe fun is only a consideration for them. It's not that 60-card formats, from all angles, don't care if the opposing player is having fun. If you jam a top deck against an overmatched deck, in any format, the two people playing at the kitchen table will soon adapt so that they're having fun again. If people aren't having fun at a tournament, they'll drop. That's because people participate in that kind of Magic with the main goal of having fun.
Bolded for emphasis. If a person is not having fun doing something, they don't (usually) grit their teeth and get better just to see if they might actually like it, they quit doing it altogether. If I try a new food and it tastes awful, I don't eat it more, I stop eating it and find something else to eat.
I'd responded to a statement of yours where you'd said EDH cares about your opponent having fun, wheras 60 card Magic doesn't. I'm assuming your conclusion to that was that the same criteria used in 60 cards, e.g. balance, shouldn't be used to regulate EDH.
If your conclusion was that people stop doing things they don't like, then I'll have to both agree with that conclusion, and also wonder how that's related to discussion of the ban list.
And I can assure you that a great portion, if not most, of WOTC creative and design is motivated around the concept of fun. It's pretty clear also that even the DCI is concerned with fun as experienced through tournament attendance. As I remember from the JTMS-Stoneforge ban of Zendikar Standard, one of the principal reasons they gave for the nerf to the Caw Blade deck was that everyone had had their fun with it, and DCI judgment was that more fun was to be had for the remaining season without it than with it.
Yeah I already said as much. People having fun at a tournament = higher attendance = more sales. People not having fun = not attending tournaments = less money. Caw-Blade wasn't nerfed because it wasn't fun. It was arguably one of the most fun decks to pilot because it was so skill intensive and rewarding of perfect play. It was banned because it made up over half of the entire tournament metagame. You had the choice of not playing Caw-Blade and probably losing or playing Caw-Blade and having a coin flip if you were lucky and skilled. There was also proof with hard numbers that tournament attendance was dropping. So they nerfed it with bans to keep the crux of the deck from further warping the format.
I suppose we agree. But my point is that Magic is not just full of players who want power and want skill intensive cards, notwithstanding of how fun they are. Here's a portion of that ban list statement:
It was less clear this time, so we were willing to see if players were in fact tolerant of a skill-rewarding one-deck metagame. The ultimate goal is player enjoyment, and if most people were enjoying themselves, we weren't going to take any rash actions based solely on the math of deck lists.
But then the formal complaints began pouring in, followed by a drop in attendance—pronounced at Pro Tour Qualifiers, shocking at the recent New Phyrexia Game Day, more subtle but just as real at Friday Night Magic—that we can't ignore. If people don't want to play the game, we need to fix it.
There exists a crowd of competitive players who pursue perfection, who have no personal attachment to any certain cards or decks save those that reward them for their great skill and dedication. I very much appreciate that mindset; in fact, much of our organized play encourages it. But there exists a larger crowd for whom decks and cards are extensions of themselves, who revel in diverse metagames wherein they can show off their creativity. They want to be able to play decks that suit their whims and personalities without feeling like they are wasting their time; they want Magic to afford them the opportunities to individualize while still taking it seriously. Standard has lost that in recent months, and we aim to bring it back.
Basically, the format was skill rewarding, but it wasn't fun to enough people, and WOTC made the ban because of that. So sorry EDH, there you have it, fun is a ban criteria used by the DCI.
The thing is that balance, or lack thereof, is a factor that is, almost without dispute, detrimental to fun. And then balance gets discussed in isolation becuase it's objective, so now you don't have to have a pissing match about what is fun. If it's imbalanced, then it's presumptively unfun. If you have to go through leaps and bounds avoiding the imbalance, with the goal of making the game fun again, that only strengthens the case that imbalance is deterimental to fun.
Imbalance is only detrimental to fun when players choose to ignore it. Let's imagine that the three of us decided to play HORSE with Michael Jordan. Seems like an awfully imbalanced game, how could either of us expect to have any fun? But Michael, being the cool guy that he is and knowing that HORSE isn't about winning as quickly as possible and more about having fun making goofy trick shots, decides that he's only going to make shots which would put the Harlem Globetrotters to shame. We all have a fun game in which we get to participate, and we probably still get beaten by him, but it doesn't matter because the game wasn't a lopsided suckfest of him making perfect three-pointers and us not because we aren't former NBA players.
So what you've done here is go through leaps and bounds, literally, to avoid the imbalance. Presumptively, because it wouldn't be fun otherwise. Point taken.
So if you accept the argument then that imbalance is unfun, unless you avoid it, why wouldn't you be willing to avoid it by making a ban? It seems like you've arbitrarily cordoned off that possibility, based on nothing other than the fact that you don't absolutely have to have a ban to preserve fun and can just avoid it yourself instead. That's not really a reason you shouldn't make a ban, you're just reminding yourself that not making it doesn't cause the world to blow up.
Besides, are you saying that bans ruin your fun? That we need to keep Vintage restricted cards legal in EDH in order to have fun? I don't think anyone will say that. The idea that bans are made in order to make a game worse, rather than better, is one of those things that I have no clue how it got started and was accepted to the degree it has been in EDH apologetics.
I don't even know how to respond to this. I cannot fathom how you arrived at this conclusion.
Easy. The argument goes, and you yourself just made it, "We shouldn't ban such and such, because EDH is a format about fun."
The only way that's logically valid is with the premise "bans reduce fun". In other words, we need these Vintage restricted cards to have fun.
With the opposite premise, "some bans can increase fun", as myself and evidently the DCI agree, there's no way EDH being a format about fun could reduce the motive to make bans.
The correct idea is probably that whether a ban increases or reduces fun depends on what card is getting banned. Others have made the case why a ban of certain cards would increase fun. So, make a case why these Vintage power cards being legal increases fun, not just a case for how the unfun of them being legal can be avoided if you sprinkle pixie dust, wish upon a star, and believe really hard.
How long ago was the Hulk test? Was Primetime still legal at the time? Because that makes a pretty big difference.
Hmm, year and a half ago? Something like that. Definitely post-PT. Pre-PT we knew to not even try.
Nice to hear you guys do that sort of testing. Does it happen often? Any thoughts on whether an assignment by the RC to test a card like that is incentive to try and bust a card in half? I could see people really being excited about wanting to play a card in that situation and it centralizing games in their group just because of that. Just a thought...
Hmm, year and a half ago? Something like that. Definitely post-PT. Pre-PT we knew to not even try.
Thanks for the reply.
Personally, I tested the card in my Cube, where it's harder to break because you can't just put Karmic Guide into its deck automatically. It mostly did nothing or relatively fair stuff like "die, find a Grave Titan". There was one game where a guy Kiki-jiki, Mirror Breakered it multiple turns in a row and took over a game.
It got cut because I realized Green was winning a disproportionate number of games, and also had a lot of banned cards available to it, so I cut them all and replaced them with more interesting stuff at a lower power level. I'd be willing to give it another shot though, of the banned Green cards, it's definitely the fairest IMO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
The correct idea is probably that whether a ban increases or reduces fun depends on what card is getting banned. Others have made the case why a ban of certain cards would increase fun. So, make a case why these Vintage power cards being legal increases fun, not just a case for how the unfun of them being legal can be avoided if you sprinkle pixie dust, wish upon a star, and believe really hard.
No amount anecdotal data or argument would sway you, so why waste the time? Its all been said here a thousand times, and you don't care for the answer.
No ban list covers everyone, we make do with what we have. This format has been wildly successful, why bugger it up?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I'd responded to a statement of yours where you'd said EDH cares about your opponent having fun, wheras 60 card Magic doesn't. I'm assuming your conclusion to that was that the same criteria used in 60 cards, e.g. balance, shouldn't be used to regulate EDH.
Taken out of context. I said "I would argue that 60 card formats don't care if your individual opponent is having fun, so long as games aren't consistently being drawn to time or warping the format to the point of "play this card or die by it"." Magic as a whole of course cares whether or not the players are having fun, because that's what pays the bills. But that is irrelevant, because when they design a set, they do it under the premise that nothing will be banned. So really, Wizards wants no ban list at all. This is completely separate from creating and nurturing a format (60 card Magic), because the goal there is to hold competitive events, and players who set out with a primary goal of winning and a secondary goal (maybe) of their opponent enjoying themselves will do their hardest to break a card. Your quote confirms this.
Basically, the format was skill rewarding, but it wasn't fun to enough people, and WOTC made the ban because of that. So sorry EDH, there you have it, fun is a ban criteria used by the DCI.
And how did they conclude that people were not having fun? Did they poll Timmy at his kitchen table? "But then the formal complaints began pouring in, followed by a drop in attendance—pronounced at Pro Tour Qualifiers, shocking at the recent New Phyrexia Game Day, more subtle but just as real at Friday Night Magic—that we can't ignore. If people don't want to play the game, we need to fix it." Ah... people stopped attending tournaments, presumably causing a drop in sales. They didn't care when there was only one viable deck at the competitive level so long as people still payed good money to play the game, but the second people started to vote with their wallets action had to be taken.
So what you've done here is go through leaps and bounds, literally, to avoid the imbalance. Presumptively, because it wouldn't be fun otherwise. Point taken.
Hardly leaps and bounds. It does not take much intelligence to see that I am outclassed by Michael Jordan in a game of basketball, or that Sol Ring is a broken card by design. But rather than blindly crying "imbalance!" and banning either, I am looking at the game that we are playing and its intent. I specifically chose HORSE as my example because I feel it parallels quite nicely with EDH, and in both games it is not too hard to create a huge imbalance if your goal is simply to win at all costs. Most people probably know that when you play HORSE, attempting cool shots and then trying to duplicate and/or top them is probably more important than actually winning, just like in EDH as Sheldon said, "create games that you'd love to remember not the ones others would like to forget."
I'm simply recognizing that balance is as much the cards as it is the rest of the table. If I'm playing against a new to the game player I could build a budget tribal deck with a Modern-legal card pool and either crush them or make the game something fun for both of us. I could do the same with a deck that would make a Vintage deck blush. The key point here is that a ban list will not change how the players approach the game, and whether the RC banned one or twenty of the cards that the competitive players in this thread claim ruin the game, those players will still ruin games when they sit down at an unbalanced table.
So if you accept the argument then that imbalance is unfun, unless you avoid it, why wouldn't you be willing to avoid it by making a ban? It seems like you've arbitrarily cordoned off that possibility, based on nothing other than the fact that you don't absolutely have to have a ban to preserve fun and can just avoid it yourself instead. That's not really a reason you shouldn't make a ban, you're just reminding yourself that not making it doesn't cause the world to blow up.
Why ban a card when the majority of people aren't abusing it? Should the RC ban Hermit Druid? Ad Nauseam? Doomsday? Worldgorger Dragon? Lion's Eye Diamond? Mind's Desire? Staff of Domination? You have yet to make a case that Sol Ring, Demonic Tutor, or Survival of the Fittest are card which are warping the game. Hell, in your own quote whoever it was that made that announcement said they were fine with Caw-Blade being ubiquitous to the format so long as people were having fun. Sol Ring may be a staple in almost every deck and it is acknowledged as broken, but players are having fun by the same metric that can be reasonably viewed: growth and attendance.
Easy. The argument goes, and you yourself just made it, "We shouldn't ban such and such, because EDH is a format about fun."
The only way that's logically valid is with the premise "bans reduce fun". In other words, we need these Vintage restricted cards to have fun.
An apple is a fruit. A watermelon is a fruit. Logically, an apple is a watermelon.
With the opposite premise, "some bans can increase fun", as myself and evidently the DCI agree, there's no way EDH being a format about fun could reduce the motive to make bans.
The RC agrees with you as well. That's why they ban cards that the majority demographic find decrease fun.
The correct idea is probably that whether a ban increases or reduces fun depends on what card is getting banned. Others have made the case why a ban of certain cards would increase fun. So, make a case why these Vintage power cards being legal increases fun, not just a case for how the unfun of them being legal can be avoided if you sprinkle pixie dust, wish upon a star, and believe really hard.
I'm not sure how "hey you know this is a social format and actually playing a game which lasts past the third turn is more fun than winning or getting my opponents to scoop before their third land drop" is the equivalent to believing in make-believe creatures. I've tried sprinkling pixie dust, wishing really hard, and even clapping because I believed, and haven't had any luck with Libary, despite the card being totally tame in game. But it turns out that EDH isn't just about game play, it's about external factors like how people approach this format and view it.
Just catching up on a few pages of this discussion. Wildfire, it looks like Toby answered everything to your satisfaction (if not, let me know).
In answer to deegeebee, no the invitation is to see if it's broken without trying, which is a much better bellweather for whether or not a card is ban-worthy. This is what the Protean Hulk test revealed. Locally, we simply swapped it into existing decks and everyone agreed that it was degenerate.
Jusstice, I appreciate that you're so passionate about the format that you're willing to spend so much time making arguments in an effort to improve it. Even if we fundamentally disagree, I also appreciate your skill in formulating and defending an argument. Then you tack on stuff like that pixie dust nonsense and you undercut all the work you've done. I'll do my best to nonetheless take you seriously and hope that in the future you'll make it easier for me to do so.
Just catching up on a few pages of this discussion. Wildfire, it looks like Toby answered everything to your satisfaction (if not, let me know).
In answer to deegeebee, no the invitation is to see if it's broken without trying, which is a much better bellweather for whether or not a card is ban-worthy. This is what the Protean Hulk test revealed. Locally, we simply swapped it into existing decks and everyone agreed that it was degenerate.
Jusstice, I appreciate that you're so passionate about the format that you're willing to spend so much time making arguments in an effort to improve it. Even if we fundamentally disagree, I also appreciate your skill in formulating and defending an argument. Then you tack on stuff like that pixie dust nonsense and you undercut all the work you've done. I'll do my best to nonetheless take you seriously and hope that in the future you'll make it easier for me to do so.
Sheldon, out of curiosity, what sorts of feedback did you get from Hulk? Were there particular interactions that people cited? Was it an overall too-good toolbox card?
Sheldon, out of curiosity, what sorts of feedback did you get from Hulk? Were there particular interactions that people cited? Was it an overall too-good toolbox card?
Yeah, green has so many great utility creatures, but it wasn't necessarily the utility, but the ability to go with other colors. We found it worse in the white decks, since Karmic Guide, Saffi, and Reveillark already provide a strong base for recursion. It just became too much for free, especially with all the ways there are to recur the Hulk.
Yeah, green has so many great utility creatures, but it wasn't necessarily the utility, but the ability to go with other colors. We found it worse in the white decks, since Karmic Guide, Saffi, and Reveillark already provide a strong base for recursion. It just became too much for free, especially with all the ways there are to recur the Hulk.
Ultimately, this is a social format, not a competitive one. You CAN play EDH without a playgroup, but I would argue you are not getting the full experience that way.
Your example about Standard doesn't make any sense. Let's take a more analogous example: 60-card Casual. Most 60-card Casual lists are built under the Legacy banlist, because that eliminates a lot of the most problematic cards for the format. However, established playgroups commonly ban cards like Gray Merchant of Asphodel, Waste Not, Sylvan Primordial, Primeval Titan, and Exsanguinate for just being too good. There's obviously no "official" Casual banlist, but the established common ground is clearly not sufficient for many playgroups, so they house-ban cards that they consider problematic.
The problem with your assessment of the format is the "unwholesome" cards are not problematic unless the person playing them is doing so with malicious intent. If you are playing a friendly, social format, there's 0 problem with Demonic Tutor or Sol Ring.
That's an interesting example. Unfortunately, it's not relevant to EDH except as an example of how things are not done.
In your example, the banlist is made for competitive players in official events. This takes care of most of the problem cards.
Then casual players are able to modify it for casual play. This makes sense. Casual players are more easily able to ignore any official banlist and use cool cards that would be unsuitable for competitive play. imagine the reverse: A legacy banlist designed for play around kitchen tables, and enforced at tournaments. "Oh, sol ring only allows something degenerate if you're competitive, so it's fine at competitive events!" Such a decision would ruin competitive legacy, and seriously hamper all the fun that can be had in the competitive side of the format.
Unfortunately, the current situation in EDH is that crapshoot I described. The banlist is propagated for casual players (who need the banlist the least), and the concerns of competitive players are largely ignored. Under the more logical situation with the legacy banlist, both groups of people are happy: the competitive players can go to some legacy event and not have to worry about Sol Ring lowering the quality of their games, while casual players can house rule that Sol Ring is fair, and Exsanguinate unfair.
It's the same with every other banlist: Modern, Standard (if there ever is a standard banlist again. I hope not), vintage, etc. Design for competitive players, and the casual base will be just as happy, because they'll either ignore or modify the list. Do the reverse, and the competitive crowd can't enjoy the format as much as they could, and the casual base will still be just as happy, because they're still going to ignore or modify the list as they see fit. If the people in charge of the format care about maximizing fun (and they should care about that), then the question about who they should balance the list for is a simple mathematical one: What group of people is bigger? Just casuals? or Competitive players plus casual players?
The fundamental difference between the french list and the multiplayer list isn't that french is designed for duels, though that is a highly relevant difference. The fundamental difference between french and multiplayer is that the people behind the french list recognize this simple truth: ban based on the top levels of play, and you'll make the most people happy with the format.
cards are not problematic unless the person playing them is doing so with malicious intent. If you are playing a friendly, social format, there's 0 problem with Demonic Tutor or Sol Ring.
Also this is false. Even if you're enjoying a social game (great conversation, great beer, great friends, etc) you can still recognize that the game would be more enjoyable if you weren't able to demonic tutor X, or your friend wasn't able to cast Y on turn 2 with a sol ring. What do you even define as malicious intent anyways? trying to win?
Just catching up on a few pages of this discussion. Wildfire, it looks like Toby answered everything to your satisfaction (if not, let me know).
In answer to deegeebee, no the invitation is to see if it's broken without trying, which is a much better bellweather for whether or not a card is ban-worthy. This is what the Protean Hulk test revealed. Locally, we simply swapped it into existing decks and everyone agreed that it was degenerate.
Jusstice, I appreciate that you're so passionate about the format that you're willing to spend so much time making arguments in an effort to improve it. Even if we fundamentally disagree, I also appreciate your skill in formulating and defending an argument. Then you tack on stuff like that pixie dust nonsense and you undercut all the work you've done. I'll do my best to nonetheless take you seriously and hope that in the future you'll make it easier for me to do so.
Sorry, man. My style of writing is logical by nature, but as you've probably noticed, not very concise. Once in a while in the interest of brevity, I try my hand at some dry wittiness, ala Phil or Jivan. I suppose I could do for some improvement.
That's an interesting example. Unfortunately, it's not relevant to EDH except as an example of how things are not done.
In your example, the banlist is made for competitive players in official events. This takes care of most of the problem cards.
Then casual players are able to modify it for casual play. This makes sense. Casual players are more easily able to ignore any official banlist and use cool cards that would be unsuitable for competitive play. imagine the reverse: A legacy banlist designed for play around kitchen tables, and enforced at tournaments. "Oh, sol ring only allows something degenerate if you're competitive, so it's fine at competitive events!" Such a decision would ruin competitive legacy, and seriously hamper all the fun that can be had in the competitive side of the format.
Unfortunately, the current situation in EDH is that crapshoot I described. The banlist is propagated for casual players (who need the banlist the least), and the concerns of competitive players are largely ignored. Under the more logical situation with the legacy banlist, both groups of people are happy: the competitive players can go to some legacy event and not have to worry about Sol Ring lowering the quality of their games, while casual players can house rule that Sol Ring is fair, and Exsanguinate unfair.
It's the same with every other banlist: Modern, Standard (if there ever is a standard banlist again. I hope not), vintage, etc. Design for competitive players, and the casual base will be just as happy, because they'll either ignore or modify the list. Do the reverse, and the competitive crowd can't enjoy the format as much as they could, and the casual base will still be just as happy, because they're still going to ignore or modify the list as they see fit. If the people in charge of the format care about maximizing fun (and they should care about that), then the question about who they should balance the list for is a simple mathematical one: What group of people is bigger? Just casuals? or Competitive players plus casual players?
The fundamental difference between the french list and the multiplayer list isn't that french is designed for duels, though that is a highly relevant difference. The fundamental difference between french and multiplayer is that the people behind the french list recognize this simple truth: ban based on the top levels of play, and you'll make the most people happy with the format.
Also this is false. Even if you're enjoying a social game (great conversation, great beer, great friends, etc) you can still recognize that the game would be more enjoyable if you weren't able to demonic tutor X, or your friend wasn't able to cast Y on turn 2 with a sol ring. What do you even define as malicious intent anyways? trying to win?
This probably the most straight-forward and best defense for banning towards competitive play I've read. Thank you.
The fundamental difference between the french list and the multiplayer list isn't that french is designed for duels, though that is a highly relevant difference. The fundamental difference between french and multiplayer is that the people behind the french list recognize this simple truth: ban based on the top levels of play, and you'll make the most people happy with the format.
Because that is the group they are TRYING to make happy: The competitive set. EDH is not aimed at them. EDH also hits its mark, you just complain the target isnt the same. It should not be.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
The fundamental difference between french and multiplayer is that the people behind the french list recognize this simple truth: ban based on the top levels of play, and you'll make the most people happy with the format.
This was a fine articulation of the competitive position. However, you overreached here. The French list is almost exclusively played competitively; it sees relatively little casual play. It, in fact, makes the people who want that style of game happy. Which is great, but doesn't make the most people happy with the format.
I'm kind of surprised karmic guide, revillark and saffi would make it that bad unless you were using it to one card combo. I doubt its. anymore value than seplachrual primordial or maelstrom wanderer. Of course it's never been insane in any deck I've built and considered its power in. I didn't have many reanimation dudes though. Of course saffi with sun titan or revillark are silly too. I'm also not sure it would be more value than rite of replication or tooth and nail.
I'm kind of surprised karmic guide, revillark and saffi would make it that bad unless you were using it to one card combo. I doubt its. anymore value than seplachrual primordial or maelstrom wanderer. Of course it's never been insane in any deck I've built and considered its power in. I didn't have many reanimation dudes though. Of course saffi with sun titan or revillark are silly too. I'm also not sure it would be more value than rite of replication or tooth and nail.
Reveillark and Saffi don't make sense because there is no direct synegy there (as in 'I grab this card and get to loop P-Hulk again), but I can understand Karmic Guide. I think one you have added Guide and then decided that Saffi and Llark would be kicking it up a notch, your mindset is starting to skew from something the RC can reasonably control. Unfortunately, those are fairly common and cheap cards, so it is reasonable to expect them to see play in a G/W build.
I'm not following Sheldon's lines here. If he said (as some here) that T&N can be played fairly, what makes anyone think that White/Green decks always sport Karmic Guide, Saffi, and Reveillark? I think the assumption here is a bad precedent.
I'm very sure many here have the lingering suspicions that so-and-so-card on the banlist can be played fairly. Hulk can just be an awesome value creature for those not running combo/rebuys.
I'm not following Sheldon's lines here. If he said (as some here) that T&N can be played fairly, what makes anyone think that White/Green decks always sport Karmic Guide, Saffi, and Reveillark? I think the assumption here is a bad precedent.
I'm very sure many here have the lingering suspicions that so-and-so-card on the banlist can be played fairly. Hulk can just be an awesome value creature for those not running combo/rebuys.
Pretty sure the same people have also pointed out the difference between cheating out Hulk and reanimating it and having very few ways of cheating and reusing a nine Mana sorcery.
That's an interesting example. Unfortunately, it's not relevant to EDH except as an example of how things are not done.
In your example, the banlist is made for competitive players in official events. This takes care of most of the problem cards.
Then casual players are able to modify it for casual play. This makes sense. Casual players are more easily able to ignore any official banlist and use cool cards that would be unsuitable for competitive play. imagine the reverse: A legacy banlist designed for play around kitchen tables, and enforced at tournaments. "Oh, sol ring only allows something degenerate if you're competitive, so it's fine at competitive events!" Such a decision would ruin competitive legacy, and seriously hamper all the fun that can be had in the competitive side of the format.
Unfortunately, the current situation in EDH is that crapshoot I described. The banlist is propagated for casual players (who need the banlist the least), and the concerns of competitive players are largely ignored. Under the more logical situation with the legacy banlist, both groups of people are happy: the competitive players can go to some legacy event and not have to worry about Sol Ring lowering the quality of their games, while casual players can house rule that Sol Ring is fair, and Exsanguinate unfair.
It's the same with every other banlist: Modern, Standard (if there ever is a standard banlist again. I hope not), vintage, etc. Design for competitive players, and the casual base will be just as happy, because they'll either ignore or modify the list. Do the reverse, and the competitive crowd can't enjoy the format as much as they could, and the casual base will still be just as happy, because they're still going to ignore or modify the list as they see fit. If the people in charge of the format care about maximizing fun (and they should care about that), then the question about who they should balance the list for is a simple mathematical one: What group of people is bigger? Just casuals? or Competitive players plus casual players?
The fundamental difference between the french list and the multiplayer list isn't that french is designed for duels, though that is a highly relevant difference. The fundamental difference between french and multiplayer is that the people behind the french list recognize this simple truth: ban based on the top levels of play, and you'll make the most people happy with the format.
Also this is false. Even if you're enjoying a social game (great conversation, great beer, great friends, etc) you can still recognize that the game would be more enjoyable if you weren't able to demonic tutor X, or your friend wasn't able to cast Y on turn 2 with a sol ring. What do you even define as malicious intent anyways? trying to win?
This probably the most straight-forward and best defense for banning towards competitive play I've read. Thank you.
I also like the defense provided, it's so clear that I could think of a somewhat "counter-argument" to this though. Not sure if it still be clear by the time I'm done typing though.
This entire thing becomes a "demographic problem" then. It's easy to say "construct a competitive banlist than have the casual players modify it", but then EDH gets "regressed" into Kitchen Table mode, like almost every other casual format out there. Yes, you can play a casual Legacy deck with no ban list and walk into a store and someone might still agree with a casual game with you, but that person is likely to have a deck based on the "Competitive ban list" than a casual deck. Let's not get to the people that might not even play because of it then.
A closer example is the Duel Commander / French EDH decks. I don't have any statistics for the following, but I would say it should be true. Most people just bring in their "competitive" decks for casual Duel Commander games. There are hardly any "True Casual Duel Commander Games" (not counting 2 Multiplayer EDH players who can't find other players on a bad day and just decided to play a round).
People usually don't modify their "competitive decks" for casual play with other players and they rarely create completely new decks simply for a "Casual Variant". It holds true for any format that has a Competitive side, including Duel Commander.
Design for competitive players, and the casual base will be just as happy, because they'll either ignore or modify the list. Do the reverse, and the competitive crowd can't enjoy the format as much as they could, and the casual base will still be just as happy, because they're still going to ignore or modify the list as they see fit.
This is true. But it's likely the numbers show that outside of the Kitchen Table, the numbers of players in casual are dwarfed by the number of competitive-legal players.
I ask, when one goes to the LGS and wants to play a casual format, what is the first thing one would likely think of because you are most likely to find players in that format? Multiplayer EDH. Why is it that it is difficult to find a consistent stream of players who play Casual 60-card formats? Or even to find Casual Duel Commander players around? It's the competitive ban list.
Once the Competitive Multiplayer Ban List is up, players will find it easier to adhere to it and just drop the casual altogether. In fact, how many of you who play in several different playgroups have a radically different ban list from the current Multiplayer Ban List that applies to all your playgroups? "Casuals can just modify the rules since it's casual" is a true statement, but one that drastically reduces the "population" of random players that can just meet at the LGS for "Casual Games".
Yes, the price we pay is the Competitiveness of the format, but the casual ban list "brings the Kitchen Table to the LGS". Something no other format has successfully done on a large scale.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You want the banlist changed because you think you know a better online list to use. Convince the MTGO programmers that's the better list to use. You want the majority (paper players) to fold to the minority (online players). That's ludicrous considering you cant even get consensus on what a "better" list would look like.
Thats the problem you choose not to talk about: This is all opinion. Whats casual and whats not is open to interpretations, so why would your list be better?
I'm not sure why EDH players believe fun is only a consideration for them. It's not that 60-card formats, from all angles, don't care if the opposing player is having fun. If you jam a top deck against an overmatched deck, in any format, the two people playing at the kitchen table will soon adapt so that they're having fun again. If people aren't having fun at a tournament, they'll drop. That's because people participate in that kind of Magic with the main goal of having fun.
And I can assure you that a great portion, if not most, of WOTC creative and design is motivated around the concept of fun. It's pretty clear also that even the DCI is concerned with fun as experienced through tournament attendance. As I remember from the JTMS-Stoneforge ban of Zendikar Standard, one of the principal reasons they gave for the nerf to the Caw Blade deck was that everyone had had their fun with it, and DCI judgment was that more fun was to be had for the remaining season without it than with it.
The thing is that balance, or lack thereof, is a factor that is, almost without dispute, detrimental to fun. And then balance gets discussed in isolation becuase it's objective, so now you don't have to have a pissing match about what is fun. If it's imbalanced, then it's presumptively unfun. If you have to go through leaps and bounds avoiding the imbalance, with the goal of making the game fun again, that only strengthens the case that imbalance is deterimental to fun.
Besides, are you saying that bans ruin your fun? That we need to keep Vintage restricted cards legal in EDH in order to have fun? I don't think anyone will say that. The idea that bans are made in order to make a game worse, rather than better, is one of those things that I have no clue how it got started and was accepted to the degree it has been in EDH apologetics.
So basically you are saying, "Tough, deal with it." I guess you've conceded the point then?
Also, you shouldn't have to be better qualified as an authority to issue a ban list before you're qualified to criticize the current one. Where's the burden of proof here? Certain cards are not banned, that decision or non-decision was made according to some justification, and that justification is totally vulnerable to criticism.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think the design philosophy is starting to steer away from "yup, we made this for EDH, did we make it obvious enough?" and heading towards a more subtle approach like the origins walkers. I initially disliked transform, but the way it was implemented in origins was perfect!
Sure it is, but the burden is on you and yours to show something else would be better. Complain all you like, this is a forum with specifically that task, but you have to show how it would be better if you want others to agree with you. These forums matter, the RC looks at them and uses the information here. But if you cant convince anyone here, why would the RC listen?
Hmm, year and a half ago? Something like that. Definitely post-PT. Pre-PT we knew to not even try.
Bolded for emphasis. If a person is not having fun doing something, they don't (usually) grit their teeth and get better just to see if they might actually like it, they quit doing it altogether. If I try a new food and it tastes awful, I don't eat it more, I stop eating it and find something else to eat.
Yeah I already said as much. People having fun at a tournament = higher attendance = more sales. People not having fun = not attending tournaments = less money. Caw-Blade wasn't nerfed because it wasn't fun. It was arguably one of the most fun decks to pilot because it was so skill intensive and rewarding of perfect play. It was banned because it made up over half of the entire tournament metagame. You had the choice of not playing Caw-Blade and probably losing or playing Caw-Blade and having a coin flip if you were lucky and skilled. There was also proof with hard numbers that tournament attendance was dropping. So they nerfed it with bans to keep the crux of the deck from further warping the format.
Imbalance is only detrimental to fun when players choose to ignore it. Let's imagine that the three of us decided to play HORSE with Michael Jordan. Seems like an awfully imbalanced game, how could either of us expect to have any fun? But Michael, being the cool guy that he is and knowing that HORSE isn't about winning as quickly as possible and more about having fun making goofy trick shots, decides that he's only going to make shots which would put the Harlem Globetrotters to shame. We all have a fun game in which we get to participate, and we probably still get beaten by him, but it doesn't matter because the game wasn't a lopsided suckfest of him making perfect three-pointers and us not because we aren't former NBA players.
I don't even know how to respond to this. I cannot fathom how you arrived at this conclusion.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'd responded to a statement of yours where you'd said EDH cares about your opponent having fun, wheras 60 card Magic doesn't. I'm assuming your conclusion to that was that the same criteria used in 60 cards, e.g. balance, shouldn't be used to regulate EDH.
If your conclusion was that people stop doing things they don't like, then I'll have to both agree with that conclusion, and also wonder how that's related to discussion of the ban list.
I suppose we agree. But my point is that Magic is not just full of players who want power and want skill intensive cards, notwithstanding of how fun they are. Here's a portion of that ban list statement:
Basically, the format was skill rewarding, but it wasn't fun to enough people, and WOTC made the ban because of that. So sorry EDH, there you have it, fun is a ban criteria used by the DCI.
So what you've done here is go through leaps and bounds, literally, to avoid the imbalance. Presumptively, because it wouldn't be fun otherwise. Point taken.
So if you accept the argument then that imbalance is unfun, unless you avoid it, why wouldn't you be willing to avoid it by making a ban? It seems like you've arbitrarily cordoned off that possibility, based on nothing other than the fact that you don't absolutely have to have a ban to preserve fun and can just avoid it yourself instead. That's not really a reason you shouldn't make a ban, you're just reminding yourself that not making it doesn't cause the world to blow up.
Easy. The argument goes, and you yourself just made it, "We shouldn't ban such and such, because EDH is a format about fun."
The only way that's logically valid is with the premise "bans reduce fun". In other words, we need these Vintage restricted cards to have fun.
With the opposite premise, "some bans can increase fun", as myself and evidently the DCI agree, there's no way EDH being a format about fun could reduce the motive to make bans.
The correct idea is probably that whether a ban increases or reduces fun depends on what card is getting banned. Others have made the case why a ban of certain cards would increase fun. So, make a case why these Vintage power cards being legal increases fun, not just a case for how the unfun of them being legal can be avoided if you sprinkle pixie dust, wish upon a star, and believe really hard.
Nice to hear you guys do that sort of testing. Does it happen often? Any thoughts on whether an assignment by the RC to test a card like that is incentive to try and bust a card in half? I could see people really being excited about wanting to play a card in that situation and it centralizing games in their group just because of that. Just a thought...
UGUPrime Speaker Seamonster RampUGU
WUGDerevi Does NothingWUG
RRRFeldon's Lovely LadiesRRR
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThanks for the reply.
Personally, I tested the card in my Cube, where it's harder to break because you can't just put Karmic Guide into its deck automatically. It mostly did nothing or relatively fair stuff like "die, find a Grave Titan". There was one game where a guy Kiki-jiki, Mirror Breakered it multiple turns in a row and took over a game.
It got cut because I realized Green was winning a disproportionate number of games, and also had a lot of banned cards available to it, so I cut them all and replaced them with more interesting stuff at a lower power level. I'd be willing to give it another shot though, of the banned Green cards, it's definitely the fairest IMO.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
No ban list covers everyone, we make do with what we have. This format has been wildly successful, why bugger it up?
Taken out of context. I said "I would argue that 60 card formats don't care if your individual opponent is having fun, so long as games aren't consistently being drawn to time or warping the format to the point of "play this card or die by it"." Magic as a whole of course cares whether or not the players are having fun, because that's what pays the bills. But that is irrelevant, because when they design a set, they do it under the premise that nothing will be banned. So really, Wizards wants no ban list at all. This is completely separate from creating and nurturing a format (60 card Magic), because the goal there is to hold competitive events, and players who set out with a primary goal of winning and a secondary goal (maybe) of their opponent enjoying themselves will do their hardest to break a card. Your quote confirms this.
And how did they conclude that people were not having fun? Did they poll Timmy at his kitchen table? "But then the formal complaints began pouring in, followed by a drop in attendance—pronounced at Pro Tour Qualifiers, shocking at the recent New Phyrexia Game Day, more subtle but just as real at Friday Night Magic—that we can't ignore. If people don't want to play the game, we need to fix it." Ah... people stopped attending tournaments, presumably causing a drop in sales. They didn't care when there was only one viable deck at the competitive level so long as people still payed good money to play the game, but the second people started to vote with their wallets action had to be taken.
Hardly leaps and bounds. It does not take much intelligence to see that I am outclassed by Michael Jordan in a game of basketball, or that Sol Ring is a broken card by design. But rather than blindly crying "imbalance!" and banning either, I am looking at the game that we are playing and its intent. I specifically chose HORSE as my example because I feel it parallels quite nicely with EDH, and in both games it is not too hard to create a huge imbalance if your goal is simply to win at all costs. Most people probably know that when you play HORSE, attempting cool shots and then trying to duplicate and/or top them is probably more important than actually winning, just like in EDH as Sheldon said, "create games that you'd love to remember not the ones others would like to forget."
I'm simply recognizing that balance is as much the cards as it is the rest of the table. If I'm playing against a new to the game player I could build a budget tribal deck with a Modern-legal card pool and either crush them or make the game something fun for both of us. I could do the same with a deck that would make a Vintage deck blush. The key point here is that a ban list will not change how the players approach the game, and whether the RC banned one or twenty of the cards that the competitive players in this thread claim ruin the game, those players will still ruin games when they sit down at an unbalanced table.
Why ban a card when the majority of people aren't abusing it? Should the RC ban Hermit Druid? Ad Nauseam? Doomsday? Worldgorger Dragon? Lion's Eye Diamond? Mind's Desire? Staff of Domination? You have yet to make a case that Sol Ring, Demonic Tutor, or Survival of the Fittest are card which are warping the game. Hell, in your own quote whoever it was that made that announcement said they were fine with Caw-Blade being ubiquitous to the format so long as people were having fun. Sol Ring may be a staple in almost every deck and it is acknowledged as broken, but players are having fun by the same metric that can be reasonably viewed: growth and attendance.
An apple is a fruit. A watermelon is a fruit. Logically, an apple is a watermelon.
The RC agrees with you as well. That's why they ban cards that the majority demographic find decrease fun.
I'm not sure how "hey you know this is a social format and actually playing a game which lasts past the third turn is more fun than winning or getting my opponents to scoop before their third land drop" is the equivalent to believing in make-believe creatures. I've tried sprinkling pixie dust, wishing really hard, and even clapping because I believed, and haven't had any luck with Libary, despite the card being totally tame in game. But it turns out that EDH isn't just about game play, it's about external factors like how people approach this format and view it.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
In answer to deegeebee, no the invitation is to see if it's broken without trying, which is a much better bellweather for whether or not a card is ban-worthy. This is what the Protean Hulk test revealed. Locally, we simply swapped it into existing decks and everyone agreed that it was degenerate.
Jusstice, I appreciate that you're so passionate about the format that you're willing to spend so much time making arguments in an effort to improve it. Even if we fundamentally disagree, I also appreciate your skill in formulating and defending an argument. Then you tack on stuff like that pixie dust nonsense and you undercut all the work you've done. I'll do my best to nonetheless take you seriously and hope that in the future you'll make it easier for me to do so.
Sheldon, out of curiosity, what sorts of feedback did you get from Hulk? Were there particular interactions that people cited? Was it an overall too-good toolbox card?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Yeah, green has so many great utility creatures, but it wasn't necessarily the utility, but the ability to go with other colors. We found it worse in the white decks, since Karmic Guide, Saffi, and Reveillark already provide a strong base for recursion. It just became too much for free, especially with all the ways there are to recur the Hulk.
That makes sense. Thanks.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
That's an interesting example. Unfortunately, it's not relevant to EDH except as an example of how things are not done.
In your example, the banlist is made for competitive players in official events. This takes care of most of the problem cards.
Then casual players are able to modify it for casual play. This makes sense. Casual players are more easily able to ignore any official banlist and use cool cards that would be unsuitable for competitive play. imagine the reverse: A legacy banlist designed for play around kitchen tables, and enforced at tournaments. "Oh, sol ring only allows something degenerate if you're competitive, so it's fine at competitive events!" Such a decision would ruin competitive legacy, and seriously hamper all the fun that can be had in the competitive side of the format.
Unfortunately, the current situation in EDH is that crapshoot I described. The banlist is propagated for casual players (who need the banlist the least), and the concerns of competitive players are largely ignored. Under the more logical situation with the legacy banlist, both groups of people are happy: the competitive players can go to some legacy event and not have to worry about Sol Ring lowering the quality of their games, while casual players can house rule that Sol Ring is fair, and Exsanguinate unfair.
It's the same with every other banlist: Modern, Standard (if there ever is a standard banlist again. I hope not), vintage, etc. Design for competitive players, and the casual base will be just as happy, because they'll either ignore or modify the list. Do the reverse, and the competitive crowd can't enjoy the format as much as they could, and the casual base will still be just as happy, because they're still going to ignore or modify the list as they see fit. If the people in charge of the format care about maximizing fun (and they should care about that), then the question about who they should balance the list for is a simple mathematical one: What group of people is bigger? Just casuals? or Competitive players plus casual players?
The fundamental difference between the french list and the multiplayer list isn't that french is designed for duels, though that is a highly relevant difference. The fundamental difference between french and multiplayer is that the people behind the french list recognize this simple truth: ban based on the top levels of play, and you'll make the most people happy with the format.
Also this is false. Even if you're enjoying a social game (great conversation, great beer, great friends, etc) you can still recognize that the game would be more enjoyable if you weren't able to demonic tutor X, or your friend wasn't able to cast Y on turn 2 with a sol ring. What do you even define as malicious intent anyways? trying to win?
Sorry, man. My style of writing is logical by nature, but as you've probably noticed, not very concise. Once in a while in the interest of brevity, I try my hand at some dry wittiness, ala Phil or Jivan. I suppose I could do for some improvement.
This probably the most straight-forward and best defense for banning towards competitive play I've read. Thank you.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
This was a fine articulation of the competitive position. However, you overreached here. The French list is almost exclusively played competitively; it sees relatively little casual play. It, in fact, makes the people who want that style of game happy. Which is great, but doesn't make the most people happy with the format.
Reveillark and Saffi don't make sense because there is no direct synegy there (as in 'I grab this card and get to loop P-Hulk again), but I can understand Karmic Guide. I think one you have added Guide and then decided that Saffi and Llark would be kicking it up a notch, your mindset is starting to skew from something the RC can reasonably control. Unfortunately, those are fairly common and cheap cards, so it is reasonable to expect them to see play in a G/W build.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'm very sure many here have the lingering suspicions that so-and-so-card on the banlist can be played fairly. Hulk can just be an awesome value creature for those not running combo/rebuys.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Pretty sure the same people have also pointed out the difference between cheating out Hulk and reanimating it and having very few ways of cheating and reusing a nine Mana sorcery.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I also like the defense provided, it's so clear that I could think of a somewhat "counter-argument" to this though. Not sure if it still be clear by the time I'm done typing though.
This entire thing becomes a "demographic problem" then. It's easy to say "construct a competitive banlist than have the casual players modify it", but then EDH gets "regressed" into Kitchen Table mode, like almost every other casual format out there. Yes, you can play a casual Legacy deck with no ban list and walk into a store and someone might still agree with a casual game with you, but that person is likely to have a deck based on the "Competitive ban list" than a casual deck. Let's not get to the people that might not even play because of it then.
A closer example is the Duel Commander / French EDH decks. I don't have any statistics for the following, but I would say it should be true. Most people just bring in their "competitive" decks for casual Duel Commander games. There are hardly any "True Casual Duel Commander Games" (not counting 2 Multiplayer EDH players who can't find other players on a bad day and just decided to play a round).
People usually don't modify their "competitive decks" for casual play with other players and they rarely create completely new decks simply for a "Casual Variant". It holds true for any format that has a Competitive side, including Duel Commander.
This is true. But it's likely the numbers show that outside of the Kitchen Table, the numbers of players in casual are dwarfed by the number of competitive-legal players.
I ask, when one goes to the LGS and wants to play a casual format, what is the first thing one would likely think of because you are most likely to find players in that format? Multiplayer EDH. Why is it that it is difficult to find a consistent stream of players who play Casual 60-card formats? Or even to find Casual Duel Commander players around? It's the competitive ban list.
Once the Competitive Multiplayer Ban List is up, players will find it easier to adhere to it and just drop the casual altogether. In fact, how many of you who play in several different playgroups have a radically different ban list from the current Multiplayer Ban List that applies to all your playgroups? "Casuals can just modify the rules since it's casual" is a true statement, but one that drastically reduces the "population" of random players that can just meet at the LGS for "Casual Games".
Yes, the price we pay is the Competitiveness of the format, but the casual ban list "brings the Kitchen Table to the LGS". Something no other format has successfully done on a large scale.